In an action for breach of fiduciary duties, copyright infringement and other claims, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court properly denied of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on its breach of fiduciary duties and misappropriation of trade secrets claims as the jury could have concluded that defendants’ conduct did not proximately cause plaintiff to lose the customers’ business; 2) the court did not erroneously deny plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on the conspiracy claim as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury findings that accounting defendants and banking defendants did not conspire with the former employees; 3) jury instructions on the conspiracy claim were not erroneous; 4) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial on its aiding and abetting claims as the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude the defendants did not know the employees’ conduct was improper; 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim; and 6) the court did not err dismissing defendant’s counterclaim that he was improperly denied a bonus.
Read PFS Distribution Co. v. Raduechel, No. 08-1701
Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Submitted: April 15, 2009Filed: July 28, 2009
JudgesBefore WOLLMAN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.Opinion by Riley, Circuit Judge.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
